Sunday, September 24, 2006

The Political Pit Bull has the full video of Clinton's maniacal rage here.

Chris Wallace shares his thoughts on the interview with FishbowlDC.

I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed.

The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off.
Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.

The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing.

**UPDATE** As you might expect this rant contained a good mix of wild eyed hyperbole and threw in a few whoppers. There are several bloggers fact checking as I type. Hot Air has been updating and linking as new revelations come along. Don't miss Patterico's post showing that Chris Wallace has indeed been even handed.

This is the You Tube video that Fox anchors have mentioned off and on playing up on how many views it's had. I suspect their lawyers will feign indigence and ask to have it pulled after they are sure everybody has seen it. See Billy boy I'm helping out your "rightwinger" theory. Now give us back our proper name, we are supposed to be called The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. You can't have your "wife" give us that name and then sneer at it, if you don't like our name take it up with her.


What struck me immediately is how this guy who was President of the United States is literally too big for his britches.

Or maybe they wear their pants really, really short in Arkansas? Maybe to keep you cool in the summer? Anyone?

I think the answer is that he is completely dotty (a kind way of saying "out of his freaking mind"), just like Al Gore, Howard Dean, George Soros and other loose Democrat cannons - of which we are not in short supply.
Buy Danish,

I love the part where he yells at Chris to read the Richard Clarke book because that isn't opinion it's assertions.

What practical difference is there and why didn't he say fact instead of assertion unless he knows damn well that Clarke's book is not nearly the straight story.
Michelle Malkin has got the full wrap up if you need a pleasant change of pace.

What blows my mind about this whole sordid affair is 1) His continual mouthing of democrat talking points, is he the one that makes them up or is he parroting what the dnc is spreading around, 2) the right wing paranoia, watching the full interview struck me that this guy is obsessed with Conservatives and it is not at all healthy 3) the fact that he thinks Rupert Murdoch is in his back pocket (I told you so.)

Michelle stole my post title! Although I think I may have borrowed it myself.

I thought he used Rupert Murdoch's name as an example of neo-con tools like Richard Mellon Scaife and the right wing media conspiracy.
Buy Danish,

I took it as Clinton saying the network was covering it's butt with it's "right winger" viewer base that would turn on them for Murdoch supporting Clinton's Global initiative.

How much of that $7 Billion gets funneled through the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor?

THAT is a theory that only a scheming, paranoid, 24/7 politician like Bill Clinton could come up with. Projection, projection.

Re the massage parlor, I just made a reference to him running the white house like a smalltime Mafia operation over at that other blog of yours. I'm guessing that a good chunk gets kicked back. You'd think he could afford a decent tailor.
Buy Danish,

If you spewed as much BS as he does you'd wear high water pants too.

If I spewed thst much BS I'd have to wear a macintosh and galoshes.
hmmm...rainshoes and an apple?

Nice outfit.

LOL. A macintosh is a raincoat. You know - the yellow ones that little kids and fishermen wear.
Yeah, unfortunately I know that. The hip kids think it's a laptop.

In the NYT best seller list when they print it in the AJC has a little blurb about one book in each category.

David Limbaugh's book is the one they did for hard back nonfiction.

A lawyer columnist and brother of Rush explores the "intellectual and moral bankruptcy" of the Democratic Party.

Since when do they get to use scare quotes to editorialize? Especially when it's the name of the book.

Maybe that's why they put it in quotes. They didn't want to be accused of a copyright infringement.

Then THEY would have to answer to survey monkeys.
They would never think of an excuse that simple.
RW: My bad, I can never pass on a shameless plug for Michelle.

Danish: You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. Scroll down halfway through the comments for the full paragraph.

The two obvious things I see 1) he's developed a personal relationship with Murdoch, notice how he "addresses" him (although Rupert could be playing him) 2) I'm guessing Rupert's already gotten some grief from Fox "viewers" for his support of Hillary. This has set off the paranoid reaction deep within Bubba's primitive animalistic mind.

People want to blame Conservatives for the "decisiveness" in American politics, I believe we are looking at the real cause, inadvertently revealed in a fit of rage.

This guy is obsessively paranoid, to say the least.

Thanks for the transcript and the clarification about Murdoch.

It's not obvious from the transcript because the tone of Clinton's voice is not there, but I noticed that he had his back up after Wallace's very first question about his New Yorker interview. It was downhill from there.

I also heard this morning that per Chris Wallace Clinton lambasted his staff after the interview. Hillary and Bill are perfect for eachother.
A word of advice:

Do not, I repeat, do not miss Rush this afternoon.

I have a pretty good idea what his topic is going to be and this is something you are going to want to hear.
This story from Dick Morris is well worth reading, but the server where it's posted takes forever to load. So I am briefly going to post it here.

The real Clinton emerges
From behind the benign façade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator’s space.

But beyond noting the ex-president’s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the “definition of ‘is’ is” could perform.

Clinton told Wallace, “There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down.” Nobody said there was. The point of citing Somalia in the run up to 9-11 is that bin Laden told Fortune Magazine in a 1999 interview that the precipitous American pullout after Black Hawk Down convinced him that Americans would not stand up to armed resistance.

Clinton said conservatives “were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day” after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military’s request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied. The debate was not between immediate withdrawal and a six-month delay. (Then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) favored the first option, by the way). The fight was over whether to attack or pull out eventually without any major offensive operations.

The president told Wallace, “I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden.” But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy.

Clinton claims “the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there.” But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed.

Why didn’t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against “over-reaction.” In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a “failed bombing” and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.

In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus.

Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to “certify” him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.

The former president says, “I worked hard to try to kill him.” If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question — incompetence; to the second — he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog. The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake.

President Clinton assumes that criticism of his failure to kill bin Laden is a “nice little conservative hit job on me.” But he has it backwards. It is not because people are right-wingers that they criticize him over the failure to prevent 9/11. It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing.

The ex-president is fully justified in laying eight months of the blame for the failure to kill or catch bin Laden at the doorstep of George W. Bush. But he should candidly acknowledge that eight years of blame fall on him.

One also has to wonder when the volcanic rage beneath the surface of this would-be statesman will cool. When will the chip on his shoulder finally disappear? When will he feel sufficiently secure in his own legacy and his own skin not to boil over repeatedly in private and occasionally even in public?


Since google has been freaking out all day, I just saw your comment. What did he have to say?

He tore it up, point by point.

It's well worth the listen.

Thanks. I'm not a 24/7 member so I'll have to read the transcript when I get a chance.
It's funny, what you guys call a "maniacal rage" we call "the slap-down". ;)

So where's my comment conversation???

Exactly why do you "slap down" a reporter for asking a question? One that was remarkably similar to one asked by David Letterman earlier this year and Billy Jeff just calmly BS'd instead of freaking out I might add.

When you start a conversation you are supposed to be involved in it.

I only caught a bit of rush yesterday and haven't had time to take advantage of my membership, but I do recall that he said that Richard Clarke ASKED to be moved out of his counterterrorism job and was not "demoted".

I don't remember what the source is, but we all know that Rush is right.
Buy Danish,

I heard it over and over today that Richard Clarke had the same position on 9/11 that he had held under Clinton and it was only after he didn't get to be Deputy Director of Homeland Security that he asked to be reassigned.

Maybe he had some decent info that should have been taken more seriously, but he was also saying all kinds of things back then that didn't happen too. With Clarke it could be a case of warning about everything under the sun so that once something happened you could point out that you were right.

I tried to find the quote from Rush's Monday show in transcript form but couldn't find it.

The point is that the Disgusting Dems are trying to make Condi Rice out to be a know-nothing fool who demoted the great Richard Clarke to Siberia, and if only he'd been left where the great Clinton left him we'd be safe today.

Did you hear the latest Disgusting Dem trick where they try to paint George Allen as a racist because he called a fellow ball player "wizard" - as if that has some racist connotation.

In addition to it being patently absurd, the fact is that the guy was called "wizard" because of his skills on the ball field.

Gosh, I knew about the "N" word, but I'm just not up to speed on the "W" word. It must be the latest chapter in the Official P.C. Handbook.

I guess we won't be seeing Judy Garland and her ruby slippers anytime soon. Or maybe they could remake it with George Allen playing Dorothy.
So now it's Allen with the M word the N word and the little known W word.

I like the deer head in the mailbox of the black folks. A story so vivid and disgusting that the guy saying Allen did that never said a word until the only other witness died.

I kind of hope they keep this up and amplify it until they overplay it like always.

Unfortuately it seems to be sticking.

If it doesn't work for the Senate contest it won't be a total loss for the SOBs - the Dems are trying to ruin Allen's Presidential bid.

I was listening to Michael Medved today and he invited callers in to speak who believed that Bush manipulated gas prices down as part of some Big Conspiracy just in time for the election.

The moonbat theories were positively stunning. There was some chick on who sounded Russian and must read Pravda from cover to cover. I was in my car so I don't recall all the wacky theories, but even when MM presented them with indisputable historical facts they were unmoved to reason.

Like bonnie finch liar and his Common Dreams link about Darfur.
Buy Danish,

If the Dems stopped right now it probably would stick and ruin his chances in 2008 because Allen would probably drop it and it would be believed. If they keep pushing there will be a tipping point where it just becomes a cheap political stunt. The good news there is that if they try to resurrect it in 2008 he'll be able to show it to be old news that had already been debunked.

Let's just hope he doesn't have a Mark Furman like movie part on tape out there.
Boortz had a thing about the gas price deal today. This is one that is tough because it's tough to overcome that much stupidity, but there is no national election.

In these local races I can't see this having much traction. The one thing the Dems have going for them on this issue if it does come up in local race is normally you can go to every year and see the same price shift, but last year they went up after Katrina and Rita so they went down only in the two election years of the last three.

The problem is how you debunk an accusation that is 100% fabricated hearsay?

I'm listening to that twit Sasha Burns on O'Reilly for the second time tonight.


"The best thing they've got is that there hasn't been an attack in 5 years. That's the best they've got? I think they need to do a little bit better".

Say what, Sasha?
Yikes! I just turned to it and Bill Mahr was on.

He'll have to get the old teammates around him and try to do what Kerry tried with his few supporters. It will work a lot better for Allen since the only one on the side of Allen being a racist is a guy with an ax to grind and Allen will have the majority of them with him.

Somebody, not Allen, needs to loudly and repetitively ask this other guy why he kept his mouth shut until the other guy died.

I guess I need to look up these people's names. This also needs to be hung around Webb's neck.

It sounds like you have some work to do!

If you get a chance go to Newsbusters and check out the useful reminder about Clinton Freakout Redux with Peter Jennings. I think it was in yesterday's edition.


P.S. If you hear from Honu tell her that I love South Park too and I'm going to be SO jealous if she uses Cartman as her avatar!
I saw that over at Newsbusters. I guess the Clinton Legacy is coming clear, if Bin Laden had been a reporter Billy Jeff would have given him a stern tongue lashing.

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?